This New Architecture’: Contemporary Voices on Bombay’s ... · Indian Modernism Before Independence. ... metropolis. As a collective, these buildings, interwoven within the older

56 TEKTON: Volume 5, Issue 1, March 2018

TektonVolume 5, Issue 1, March 2018pp. 56 - 73

KEY WORDS:Bombay, Art-Deco, Modernity, 20th Century, Architectural Practices, Style Moderne, Indian Modernism Before Independence.

‘This New Architecture’: Contemporary Voices on Bombay’s Architecture Before the Nation State

Mustansir Dalvi

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper traces the development of a modern urban

sensibility in the practitioners of architecture in Bombay in

the decades before the Nation State. Largely home-grown, they

embraced a form of international Modernism. The architecture

of the time was prolific but was in contrast to imperialist

monumentality. The writings of the 1930s and 1940s that

follow these developments are often polemical, pragmatic

and even contradictory; but unabashed and outspoken. Both

architects and laypersons vigorously debated and argued in

public lectures and meetings what Claude Batley would call

‘This New Architecture’. Journals and books would disseminate

new ways of living and building that were influential in

Bombay and all over India. Cement companies would be at

the forefront, disseminating products by publicising notable

examples of architecture built every year. It is this ‘new

architecture’ that has retrospectively been labelled ‘Art

Deco’. This non-monumental, functionalist architecture for

contemporary needs defined the urban image of the emerging

metropolis. This paper charts these transitions through the

voices of the protagonists themselves.

Mustansir Dalvi is Professor of Architecture at Sir JJ College of Architecture. In his doctoral research completed at the IIT-Bombay (IDC), he has charted a semiotic of Bombay’s Art Deco Architecture. He has lectured, read and published several papers on architectural history and heritage, urban transformation and architectural semiotics. He has regularly contributed to architectural and cultural magazines besides writing columns for newspapers, popular magazines and online news portals. He is the editor of 20th Century Compulsions (Marg, 2016) – early writings about Indian modernist architecture and the author of The Past as Present: pedagogical practices in architecture at the Bombay School of Art (Sir JJ/UDRI, 2016).

57TEKTON: Volume 5, Issue 1, March 2018

IntroductionIn the last two decades before India gained

independence, an urban sensibility, essentially

modernist in outlook, established itself in the

zeitgeist of Bombay.1 This was manifest in the

huge output of architecture and urban place-

making, largely the work of architects educated

in Bombay and their mentors. In contrast

to the imperial architecture of the British,

whose programmatic monumentality was

breathing its last gasps in the buildings of New

Delhi, Bombay’s home-grown architectural

fraternity embraced modernism with design

that was both international in outlook

and contemporaneous in sensibility. Their

architecture incorporated emerging materials

and construction technology to create buildings

for their time, incorporating the latest services

to cater to an urbane lifestyle.

These buildings are significant because they

define an urban rather than a monumental

scale and display a functional purpose creating

neighbourhoods and business precincts in the

metropolis. As a collective, these buildings,

interwoven within the older areas of the city

and providing newer edges to it, created a fresh

urban fabric that united the city visually, giving

a sense of place to its inhabitants. It is the same

fabric that defines a large part of the city today,

having been in continuous use since the early

1930s.

This paper traces the development of Bombay’s

architecture in the 1930s and 1940s by an

analysis of various published writings and

texts from the same period. Through the

discussions of architecture and modernity that

its practitioners were steeped in, contemporary

and contradictory voices articulate the

architecture of their time even as the city was

undergoing rapid urban change.

Architects and interested laypersons alike

vigorously debated, argued, critiqued and

defended the changing architecture of the

changing city. The main vehicle of their

deliberations was the Journal of the Indian

Institute of Architects (JIIA). Public lectures,

seminars and meetings were held frequently to

discuss and debate what Claude Batley would

call ‘This New Architecture’. Publications brought

out at the time, particularly those by Batley,

R. S. Deshpande and the annual ‘The Modern

House in India’ series by the Cement Marketing

Companies of India would widely disseminate

the new ways of living and building that had

an influence on architects and their prospective

clients not only in Bombay but all over the

major cities of the country.

These texts allow for the creation of a historical

chronology that sets right generalizations about

architecture in Bombay during those unique

decades. Architectural writings from the 1990s

onwards have underplayed the architecture of

Bombay before national statehood as somehow

inferior or copied (Chatterjee, 1985; Lang,

Architects and interested laypersons alike vigorously debated, argued, critiqued and defended the changing architecture of the changing city. The main vehicle of their deliberations was the Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects (JIIA). Public lectures, seminars and meetings were held frequently to discuss and debate what Claude Batley would call ‘This New Architecture’.


Mustansir Dalvi

Desai, & Desai, 1997). These writings imply a

hesitant kind of Modernism waiting for the

arrival in India of the foreign Modern masters

for legitimacy. Yet, Bombay’s Indian firms

were practicing a version of international

modernism two decades before India gained

freedom. These practices would continue well

into the 1960s. The great Modern masters, at

least in the initial years, had no significant

impact on Bombay because the city already

had a tradition of Modernism for the last

quarter century or so.

The Ubiquity of Middle-class Architecture in the 1930s and 1940sNearly two decades before nationhood,

Modernism took root specifically in middle-

class, mass architecture. This changed

sensibility spread far and wide in a short

span of time and could be seen in Bombay,

Poona, Ahmedabad, Surat, Indore, Delhi,

Kanpur, Aligarh, Karachi, Lahore, Calcutta,

Patna, Dacca, Hyderabad (Sind and Nizam),

Bangalore, Madras, and Coimbatore amongst

others as can be discerned from the pages of

pubications brought out by The Associated

Cement Companies Limited. In all these

places, the architecture was surprisingly non-

regional and largely self-similar.

The spread of architects trained in Bombay (at

the Sir J.J. School of Art) all over the Dominion

and the Princely States is highlighted in an

obituary in the JIIA for Robert William Cable,

who was the first head of the Department

of Architecture at the school. Claude Batley,

the editor, compares Cable indirectly to

Christopher Wren by saying “although he left

few buildings of his own, the great bulk of

the better and more scholarly architectural

work built in Bombay during the last few

years has been designed by those who were

his students [...] trained by him are practising

in many other districts in India, as far afield as

Lahore, Delhi, Madras as well as in Burma and

Ceylon.” (1937, p. 279).

Bombay’s urban image, the one that is

recognized today, started to take shape from the

1920s. New developments that fired the city’s

contemporary image included, not only the

laying out of new neighbourhoods and precincts

outside the boundaries of what was then known

as the Inner City but also within the city itself in

the form of new avenues lined with newly built

apartment houses and bungalows. Land was

at a premium, despite the emergence of new

northern suburbs and the schemes of the City

Improvement Trust, meant that the apartment

block in a residential precinct became the

preferred choice of ‘upper-class’ urban

habitation. This extensive activity of housing

would be the critical layer superimposed on the

palimpsest Bombay that would hold its own

within the traces of native settlement and the

dominion architecture within the Fort precinct.

Bombay’s urban image, the one that is recognized today, started to take shape from the 1920s. New developments that fired the city’s contemporary image included, not only the laying out of new neighbourhoods and precincts outside the boundaries of what was then known as the Inner City but also within the city itself in the form of new avenues lined with newly built apartment houses and bungalows.


‘This New Architecture’: Contemporary Voices on Bombay’s Architecture

Before the Nation State

Architecture in the Emerging Metropolis Bombay’s architecture of the decades before

independence has to be seen in the light of

what came before it. During the city’s rise as a

commercial and financial capital, the buildings

that defined it were its public buildings, built

to consolidate the dominance of the Raj on

the rapidly developing Urbs Prima in Indis. The

imperial exercises in power-building reached

their apogee in the last two decades of the

nineteenth century, paralleling the city’s rise as

a mercantile power in the wake of the American

Civil War (1861-65), and the opening of the

Suez Canal in 1869. Imperial architecture would

continue into the first decade of the twentieth

century. The grand public buildings of the city

included the railway stations, administrative

buildings, town halls, universities, museums and

hospitals- showpieces to the imperial order on

an urban scale. Once these were done however,

there would not be much addition to the city

in the form of government buildings. What

came next were exercises in urban planning

and consolidation, insertions and extensions to

the existing city to accommodate the changing

demographics of an upwardly mobile citizenry.

In the development of Bombay, the relationship

between the British and Indians was quite

unique, unlike that in most other cities.

Indian hands wielded Bombay’s mercantile

strength, and British interests in the same

hands often suborned this authority. The

expected relationships flip-flopped without

causing any undue concern to either side, thus

allowing for the breathing (creative) space for

Indian architects to operate in. By this time,

the commercial clout of the city, the city’s

wealth was in the hands of affluent Indians,

the influential elite in Bombay, rather than its

colonial masters. Here the relation was much

more that of equals and quite symbiotic in

nature. These were the well to do, educated

(in the western tradition), upwardly mobile,

globetrotting and ocean voyaging cosmopolitan

citizens of Bombay, who made wealth and

displayed it with ostentation. The most outward

trapping of this state was the construction and

habitation of a better form of domestic space.

The architecture that came up around that

time was unique in the sense that it was “…

not imposed on the city by a government, as

was the case with the Neo-Gothic, but was

embraced by the citizens.” (Pal, 1997, p. 14).

Bombay-trained architects designed for the

city’s contemporary needs. These would include

new office buildings, cinema houses and

various types of domestic architecture. Some

of the wealthier Indian clients, like Rajab Ali

Patel, even built apartment blocks to rent out

to Englishmen who had settled in Bombay to

make their lives and careers. Richard Bently,

as far back as 1852 would observe that “the

principal dwelling houses in the island are

now owned by Parsee landlords, and are either

inhabited by themselves, or let out at high

Bombay-trained architects designed for the city’s contemporary needs. These would include new office buildings, cinema houses and various types of domestic architecture. Some of the wealthier Indian clients, like Rajab Ali Patel, even built apartment blocks to rent out to Englishmen who had settled in Bombay to make their lives and careers.


Mustansir Dalvi

were the result of the City Improvement Trust,

meant that the apartment block became the

preferred choice of affluent urban habitation.

Domestic architecture in Bombay that would

emerge in the early twentieth century would

exemplify this typology.

Various schemes of the Improvement Trust

and the opening up of suburban areas also

provided facilities for middle class housing. In

the 1920s, housing schemes were floated to offer

householders facilities by providing subsidies. A

successful scheme among these was the Dadar-

Matunga Estate – the Parsi and Hindu colonies

on either side of the Kingsway (Figure 1). Most

buildings in these areas were designed either

by qualified architects or civil engineers who

retained architects for the design of exterior

elevations and architectural details (Iyer, 2008,

p. 288). Another type of housing prevalent at the

rents to the English residents, who are rarely

inclined to involve themselves in the troubles

and responsibilities of land proprietorship.”

(Evanson, 2000, p. 167).

Contemporary Urbanity Generatedby the Schemes of the City Improvement Trust In 1898, the City Improvement Trust was

constituted by an Act after the ravages of the

bubonic plague in 1896. The Trust was entrusted

with the work of making new streets, opening

out crowded localities, reclaiming land from the

sea to provide room for the expansion of the city,

and to build hygienic homes for the less affluent.

This necessitated a newer type of building, one

that was urban, situated, as it were, close to the

action of the throbbing organic metropolis. Land

being at a premium, despite the emergence of

new northern suburbs and the vast schemes that

Figure 1: Developed by the City Improvement Trust, the Dadar-Matunga Estate with the Parsi and Hindu colonies on either side of the Kingsway (accessed from Google Earth, January 2010)




time was by various charitable trusts; schemes

such as Cusrow Baug, Rustum Baug, and the

Gamadia and Cowasji Jehangir colonies. They

provided for the lower middle class at reasonable

rents and maintained open spaces and other

facilities within their boundaries.

In the Trust areas, a fourth of the area was

reserved for roads and open spaces for all. Only

one-third of the plot area was permitted to be

built. Layouts and planning norms of areas

within the Improvement Trust were strictly

restricted and regulated. This would ensure

uniformity in the heights and proportions of

the walls, and other features. Thus differently

designed buildings came up but collectively these

gave a sense of harmony and continuity on the

streets they were built upon (Iyer, 2008, p. 288).

The Improvement Trust would also provide for

playing grounds and recreation areas, and paved

footpaths as soon as buildings were constructed

(Kapadia, 1937, p. 259).

In all, the City Improvement Trust developed

the precincts of Sion, Parel, Dadar, Matunga,

Mohammed Ali Road, Byculla, Nagpada, Princess

Street, Sandhurst Road, the Backbay (after the

reclamations of the late 1920s and 1940), the

Princess Dock, Elphinstone Road, Colaba.

Architecture, such as it would be, would

now cater to the individual householder or

entrepreneur- and their families, at work and

at play. These new developments reflected the

needs of the day – the rapidly modernizing

impulse, a new lifestyle of professionalism and

mercantilism that consolidated the port city

in the early decades of the twentieth century.

The creation of this architecture at a ‘domestic’

rather than monumental scale laid out over

vast areas of the city changed its image into

all inclusive, dynamic metropolis. Buildings

from the 1930s onwards, designed functionally

with modern construction techniques would

give Bombay its lasting cosmopolitan image of

urbanity that one associates with it even today.

These humane precincts and urban stretches

form part of the unique heritage of Bombay’s

recent past.

Bombay’s Home-grown Architectural PracticesThe 1930s and 1940s were prolific years for

architecture in Bombay. Lovji Shroff, in his

Presidential Address at the Indian Institute of

Architects (IIA) delivered on 7th June 1934,

described several examples of buildings just

completed that would in time be the definitive

examples of modern architecture in Bombay:

“It is very gratifying to note the recent spurt

in building trade after a rather prolonged lull.

The blocks of building at Colaba Causeway

Road known as “Cusrow Baug” recently

erected by the Trustees of the Nowrojee N.

Wadia Trust from the designs of Messrs.

Gregson, Batley & King, show remarkably

well what a layout from a housing scheme

These new developments reflected the needs of the day – the rapidly modernizing impulse, a new lifestyle of professionalism and mercantilism that consolidated the port city in the early decades of the twentieth century. The creation of this architecture at a ‘domestic’ rather than monumental scale laid out over vast areas of the city changed its image into all inclusive, dynamic metropolis.


Mustansir Dalvi

should be like from the hygienic point of view

[...] Amongst works of Architectural merit

recently erected in Bombay may be mentioned

the Regal Theatre close to the Prince of Wales

Museum by Mr. Charles Stephens, and Mr. A.

E Ghaswala’s building at Phirozeshaw Mehta

Road by Messrs. Bhedwar & Bhedwar. Besides

these there are many smaller buildings of

Architectural merit recently put up in Indian

and other styles on Mahomedalli Road and in

the Hindu and Parsi Colonies at Dadar. We

welcome the marked advance in architectural

quality in the designs of these buildings.”

(Shroff, 1934, p. 47)

By 1937, these building activities had energised

the city with an ‘unprecedented building boom’,

the result of large areas of land, unavailable

before, coming into the market for outright

sale or temporary lease offered by the Bombay

Municipality, the Government of Bombay and the

Port Trust. In particular, buildings on the three

stretches of South Bombay, the Cooperage, the

Phirozeshah Mehta Road and the Marine Drive

(having been leased over) were rapidly being

constructed. Even such public buildings as the

Reserve Bank of India and the Electric House

at Colaba had begun construction. The Electric

House was to be “a first-class building built on

modern lines with up-to-date arrangement and

air conditioned throughout.” (Kapadia, 1937,

p. 258) (Figure 2). These new constructions

were driven both by the predominance of new

building materials- cement and its offshoot

technologies, as well as by the designs of the

educated professional architects who oversaw

them. The result of this association was the

adoption and dissemination of a new form of

architecture catering to a new form of urban

living that can rightly be called the first flush of

modern architecture in Bombay.

Bombay’s architects had been educated in the

western tradition, some in the west (by becoming

Fellows of the Royal Institute of British Architects)

and were as forward looking and eclectic as

their paymasters. They believed in Modernism’s

essential agenda and sought to demonstrate

These new constructions were driven both by the predominance of new building materials- cement and its offshoot technologies, as well as by the designs of the educated professional architects who oversaw them. The result of this association was the adoption and dissemination of a new form of architecture catering to a new form of urban living that can rightly be called the first flush of modern architecture in Bombay.

Figure 2: Electric House (now BEST Bhavan) Colaba, Bom-bay. Designed in 1936 by Frederick McKnight.Image Source: socimage.com




it in their own work, transforming a port city

into a world city (Dalvi, 2004, p. 45). They were

also aware of the influential architecture and

literature of Modernism. Mistri and Billimoria,

in a review of architectural development in the

previous twenty-five years published in the JIIA in

1942 would propose a future architecture for the

city, using the rational theories of Le Corbusier

and other European modernists:

“It is not enough that our architects are free

from the vanity of ‘styles’. They must learn

to exploit and apply the fruits of scientific

research in their day-to-day problems…

The building is a machine to live, work or

play in […] Architecture has changed from

the art of two-dimensional pattern making

to the science of the relation of space and

movement [...] Orderliness is the beginning of

everything.” (p. 223)

Claude Batley and ‘This New Architecture’ Claude Batley, Principal of the architectural

firm Gregson, Batley and King and Professor of

Architecture at the Sir JJ School of Art, Bombay

(1923-43) was the most prolific commentator

on the architecture of Bombay. In a lecture

delivered at the Indian Institute of Architects

on October 4th 1934, he spoke of emerging

trends, of what he described as ‘This New

Architecture’ as a return to primary essentials.

In his speech he was unabashedly critical of the

revivalist and neo-Classical stylistics that were

the hallmark of the architecture of officialdom

until this time:

“This New Architecture is in one sense the

nudist movement in our profession. […]

Look at any facade on the West side of

Hornby Road, in our own Bombay, and any

reasonable man would agree that it would

be transformed for the better if one of us took

an axe and chopped off every bit of ornament

[…] surely it is more dignified for the

architect to take his place in the vanguard of

progress, serving his own day and generation,

in its own spirit...”

(Batley, 1935, p. 103).

Batley went on to speak about the changing

ways of life that were the outcome of strained

circumstances during the (First World) War,

which resulted in greater gender equality. In

addition there were technological advances

and several labour saving devices that needed

to be incorporated in the architecture that

was to come. Functionalism had been an

inspiration for the New Architecture. This,

along with the new materials available at

the disposal of contemporary architects like

cement and its by-products like “big-six”

synthetic marbles and stones, with plywood

and “celotex”, aluminium and “staybrite”,

asphalt and wired glass. Batley suggested that

the very efficiency of these new materials

would give the new architecture a ‘beauty

that comes out of truth’, also invoking Le

Corbusier’s functionalist credo: “architecture

is but the creation of perfect, and therefore

also beautiful efficiency and that, as Corbusier

says, ‘A house is a machine for living in.’”

(Batley, p. 104).

Claude Batley, Principal of the architectural firm Gregson, Batley and King and Professor of Architecture at the Sir JJ School of Art, Bombay (1923-43) was the most prolific commentator on the architecture of Bombay.


Mustansir Dalvi

In the debate that followed, Batley was

countered by D. N. Dhar, who condemned

the new fashion as being only another type

set to copy from abroad, full of corrupt

mannerisms and entirely un-national from

an Indian point of view. Batley, in turn, was

unapologetic about the emerging architecture,

replying that “... to consider it un-national

was a very great mistake, for its success rested

entirely on functionalism, and would have to

be studied in India from that point of view

alone, in which case it must, subconsciously

at least, take upon itself an Indian character.”

(p. 104). This exchange demonstrates both the

optimism and the scepticism of the times, and

the free interaction of viewpoints that would

help reinforce the changing ways of the city.

Batley of course was not alone in articulation

or practice. Just a few among Bombay’s many

were the firms of Poonegar and Mhatre;

Master, Sathe and Bhuta; Bhedwar & Bhedwar;

Merwanji, Bana and Co.; Sykes, Patkar and

Divecha; G. B. Mhatre; Yahya Merchant and

Abdulhusain Thariani. These practices aspired

to reinvent the urban image of Bombay in an

image of modernity. The new architecture was

a symbol of affluence that fulfilled the desire

of Indian clients to imitate the lifestyles of

the many princes, like the palatial Modernist

homes of Manik Bagh in Indore (1933) or the

Umaid Bhavan in Jodhpur (1929-43).

The influence of ‘l’espirit Moderne’ R. S. Deshpande was a prolific author of

several popular books on contemporary

architecture in the 1930s and 40. His writings

were primarily aimed at the layperson and

aspiring homeowner. Through his writings he

espoused a modernist viewpoint. Modern Ideal

Homes for India (1939) was a manual for building

written for those who did not have access

to professional architects. For Deshpande,

“a good house must exactly suit the family,

just as clothes to the wearer.” (p. 4). He had

little value for ‘external embellishment’ and

felt that “overflowing elaborate architectural

features contribute very little towards making

a house comfortable.” All over the West,

a change in domestic architecture, almost

revolutionary in character was taking place, so

how could Indians escape them? He invoked

the modernists – Le Corbusier, Gropius and J.

P. Oud, even the Russian Constructivists who

rose in revolt against traditionalism, dubbing it

‘a dishonest expression of academic falsehood’.

He confessed to being convinced by the

merciless logic with which they expressed their

‘astounding views’ that reached India through

books and articles in Western journals.

Deshpande, wanting a first-hand appreciation

of these Modernists went on a tour of several of

these buildings during 1936-37, and concluded

that “it was not a revolution sweeping over

the Western countries, but a natural inevitable

evolution.” (p. 4). His book is a result of his

Batley of course was not alone in articulation or practice. Just a few among Bombay’s many were the firms of Poonegar and Mhatre; Master, Sathe and Bhuta; Bhedwar & Bhedwar; Merwanji, Bana and Co.; Sykes, Patkar and Divecha; G. B. Mhatre; Yahya Merchant and Abdulhusain Thariani. These practices aspired to reinvent the urban image of Bombay in an image of modernity.




efforts to ‘Indianize’ modern ideas, and to adapt

and modify them to suit the climatic conditions

and the social conditions of the people of India.

In his attempt to define ‘Modern

Architecture’, Deshpande claimed that it has

no characteristics of its own, beyond being

simple and in harmony with modern ways

of thinking and modern ideas of hygiene,

an architecture rationally related to the

circumstances of modern life. The extreme

functionalist ideal (that architecture does not

exist, only functions exist; or there is no Art

of Building, only building) may be too much

to be applied in a dogmatic manner: “No

architect of the first rank now practises pure

functionalism. One good thing however, came

out of this movement, viz., that it emancipated

the architect from stylism.” (p. 69). The l’espirit

Moderne essentially consisted of functionalism

and simplicity and devising new methods

of construction to suit new materials. This

architecture was most suited to our country, as

it was in keeping with the philosophical ideal

of plain living and high thinking. It catered

equally for the rich and the poor (p. 70).

The Mass Popularity of RCC Fuelled by the Promotions of the Cement Companies In 1935, R. S. Deshpande would acknowledge

that “indigenous cement of the best quality

is becoming cheaper every day, and the

most efficient organisation of the Concrete

Association of India is always ready to give free

advice”. (Deshpande, 1935, p. V). The Concrete

Association of India was formed in 1927 as

‘a central clearing house of information and

technical data’ on all matters pertaining to

the many uses of cement and concrete. The

association was the technical organisation of

the Cement Marketing Company of India Ltd.,

who were the distributors for all brands of

cement manufactured by the ACC and Dalmiya

groups of Companies.

The new material of Reinforced Cement

Concrete (RCC) was well established in the

architectural practices of the country by

this time. Cement had become an ‘Indian’

material since 1914, when it started to be

manufactured in Kathiawar. By the end of

the 20s, there were cement manufacturing

companies in Wah, Lahore, Delhi, Banmor,

Lucknow, Lakheri, Karachi, Kymore, Katni,

Mehgaon, Porbandar, Nagpur, Calcutta,

Bombay, Shahbad and Madras, each equipped

with modern plants making Portland Cement

that exceeded the requirements of the British

Standard Specification (Moncrieff, 1929, p. 1).

Architectural practices in Bombay ‘specialising

in concrete’ included Desai, T. M.; Gregson,

Batley & King; Hormasjee Ardeshir; Merwanjie

Bana; Mistri & Bhedwar; Patel & Barma;

Shahpurji N. Bhuchia and Taraporewala

Bharoocha & Co.

Cement companies in India fuelled the mass

popularity of functionalist architecture by the

vigorous promotion of RCC. These companies

Cement companies in India fuelled the mass popularity of functionalist architecture by the vigorous promotion of RCC. These companies had well organised publicity departments that released brochures and ‘folders’ that compiled photographs of newly finished buildings, both domestic and public, from the major cities and princely states in India.


Mustansir Dalvi

technology. A single year’s collection of these

folders would encompass several examples

of new buildings from Bombay, Poona,

Ahmedabad, Surat, Morvi, Udaipur, Indore,

Hyderabad, Secundrabad, Tuticorin, Bangalore,

Lahore, Patna, Calcutta, Darjeeling, Kalimpong,

Assam, New Delhi, Kanpur, Aligarh, Karachi,

Madras, Coimbatore, Aleppy, amongst others.

Architecture constructed in RCC would soon

become the standard, whether for bungalows,

apartment blocks, office buildings and even

palaces. It is through these publications that

we can see the long reach of this technology

and the popularity of the architecture that it

engendered. Significantly, most of the firms

that these cement companies were putting on

display were from Bombay, most commonly

firms like Gregson, Batley and King; Master,

Sathe and Bhuta; Merwanji, Bana and Co.; G.

B. Mhatre; Doctor, Mhatre & Desai; Poonegar

& Mhatre; Yahya Merchant; Pastakia &

Billimoria; Bhedwar & Bhedwar; K. P. Davar

& Co.; Abdulhusain Thariani amongst others.

Additionally, building contractors such as

Gannon Dunkerley & Co.; Shapoorji Pallonji &

Co. and Motichand & Co. were also featured.

These firms’ reach in terms of both practice

and prolificity, spanned not just their city but

the entire country.

had well organised publicity departments that

released brochures and ‘folders’ that compiled

photographs of newly finished buildings, both

domestic and public, from the major cities

and princely states in India, displaying the

technology and aesthetics made possible by

cement in their construction (Figure 3). This

is how the virtues of concrete were advertised

by the Cement Marketing Company of India:

“Concrete gives the maximum service for a

minimum expenditure” or “Curved or square-

it’s equally easy for concrete.” (The Modern

House in India, 1942)

The examples of buildings from the 1930s

showed the popularity of this new form of

building and the extensive spread of the new

Architecture constructed in RCC would soon become the standard, whether for bungalows, apartment blocks, office buildings and even palaces. It is through these publications that we can see the long reach of this technology and the popularity of the architecture that it engendered.

Figure 3: Cover of ‘The Modern House in India’, published by the publicity department of the Cement Marketing Company of Indian Ltd.




Proselytising and Dissenting Voices Until the late 1920s, residential buildings, even

multi-storey buildings were built with brick

load-bearing walls over stone masonry plinths

and crowned with pitch tiled roofs that were

costly to maintain. Flat roofs built in concrete

would become popular with architects from

the 30s onwards as an easier and acceptable

option, and also one that was associated

with modernity (Iyer, 2008, p. 288). Buildings

constructed thus would be both efficient in

terms of planning, require lesser materials

as compared to the more bulky load-bearing

constructions, as were practised earlier, allowed

for a variety of forms and fenestration. In their

review of construction and materials in the

JIIA, McKnight and Kapadia (1934, p. 79) would

redefine the architect as a “modeller with his

clay [...] now moulding concrete – a material

which is easily plastic – in a truly artistic and

colourful manner into any shape that may be

needed to meet the structural requirements of

the building under construction, or to suit its

environment, and the artistic tastes of the most

critical clients.”

Offshoots of cement technology included

finishing materials such as ‘snowcrete’ and

coloured cements. Buildings could now

take ‘artistic lines’, as “All the objections as

to plainness and lack of colour have been

overcome in the realisation of the possibilities

of a material which is now not only easily

handled but made in a variety of most

attractive colours [...] The present age demands

colours – up-to-date internal decorations are

bright and cheerful and suggest gaiety...” (1934,

p. 80). Seeing these buildings today, more or

less intact, after more than half a century, one

can appreciate the assertion that the vitality

that these new coloured buildings brought to a

dour urbanscape, by putting forward a far more

lively and fresh visage fuelled demand, and

created a widespread acceptance.

While the New Architecture had its unabashed

supporters, it had its fair share of detractors

too, both from within the community of

architects and beyond. The debate for what

architecture was good, appropriate and ‘Indian’

was engaged in public fora in Bombay, and

within the pages of the JIIA. Kanhaiyalal Vakil

was a noted journalist and a long-term well

wisher of the Institute who delivered several

critical lectures at their behest. In a lecture

delivered before the IIA on 7th November

1935, Vakil expressed his apprehensions both

for the flamboyant ‘revivals’ as well as the style

moderne, which he considered was ‘borrowed’.

“The cleverly forced mannerisms of the

decadent style moderne may be observed

by any intelligent eye. The ubiquitous

terrace balustrades with streamed bars,

the unprotected mid-air projections, the

garish colour and decoration are more than

indicative of the indiscriminate ransacking of

catalogue modes. This naval architecture, if it

could be so called, for stationary structures,

the projection uncovered to the blazing sun

and the monsoon downpour, are illustrative of

the grotesque and imitative decadence.”

(Vakil, 1936, p. 79)

Vakil, in his critique lists out the very features

that were commonly being adopted all over the

city. The ‘naval’ architecture, the streamlining

and the modern geometrical forms made

possible by the use of RCC were, of course,

used with ‘gay abandon’ by architects. They


Mustansir Dalvi

also modified the architecture to better adapt

to local conditions and shield the sun and rain

with daring canopies and overhangs in concrete

that are the calling card of the architecture of

their time. These adaptations can be seen in

architecture all over Bombay built in the 1930s

and 1940s, from the Oval Maidan stretch to the

Marine Drive, from the erstwhile Hornby Road

to the Dadar-Matunga estates.

It would also take some time before the new

way of group living in ‘flats’ or apartments

would be completely accepted. Hansa Mehta

speaking to the members of the IIA on 6th

February 1936 rued that the art of domestic

architecture has become a lost art in India.

She wished for flats to be so constructed “as

to give real home comforts instead of making

one feel that they are temporary abodes to

be changes as soon as something better turns

up. This unsettled feeling is very much due to

the bad architecture...” (Mehta, 1936, p. 115).

The new line of ‘flats’ that came up across

the Oval, facing off the line of older Gothic

structures that included the High Court and

the University buildings, the same group of

buildings that is today most revered as the

best set of Art Deco buildings in the city, was

not beyond criticism either.

Even within the pages of the JIIA, the unveiling

of these buildings (Figure 4) with their

‘modernistic style of elevational treatment’

was deplored for their planning, for the “the

inadequate provision of wide and spacious

verandah and balcony accommodation which

is so marked a feature in the older residential

buildings. We are inclined to the belief that the

architects have attempted to cram too much

[...] The rooms in our opinion are too small and

Figure 4: New Buildings along the Oval Maidan, Bombay, from ‘The Modern House in India’. Bombay: The Associated Cement Companies Limited (1937).




the ceiling heights inadequate for residential

quarters intended for good class tenants.”

(Ditchburn, 1936, p. 176).

The Post-Facto Appellation of ‘Art Deco’The ‘New Architecture’ that was built and

debated upon in the penultimate decades

before India gained nationhood, would in

time be remembered as ‘Art Deco’. This term

is established today but it is a post-facto

appellation. During the period between the two

World Wars, an eclectic design style developed

in Europe and the United States that later

became known as Art Deco. The name was

derived from the 1925 Exposition Internationale

des Arts Decoratifs Industriels et Modernes held in

Paris, which celebrated living in the modern

world. Today, Art Deco is used to refer to a mix

of styles from the 1920s to the 1940s. From

the stepped skyscrapers of New York and the

exuberance of the Hollywood/Jazz age to the

hotels of Miami Beach, the architecture of

the period contributed to the language of Art

Deco design.

In Bombay, the Art Deco era was one of

contradictions. Bombay’s architecture during

the time was formed broadly of two types: One

was highly ornamental, a direct import of an

architectural style from the US, as applied to

the cinema houses of Bombay. This Hollywood

style, a gesamtkunstwerk (total design) was shown

off best in the Eros, the Regal, and the Metro as

well as in a few office or commercial buildings

(Dalvi, 2000, p. 16). These elaborately finished

cinema houses, with their idiosyncratic

interior spaces and in-your-face exterior forms

extended the fantasies offered by the films

themselves. These buildings expressed the

corporate branding of various American cinema

companies like Metro Goldwn Mayer and

United Artists Worldwide, like the McDonalds

of today, and perpetuated the image of glitz

and tinsel. Bombay’s extended obsession with

the movies received its first boost, as by 1933

Bombay possessed more than sixty cinema

houses (and nearly 300 by 1939) including

seven talkies, located in traditionally styled

buildings (Alff, 1997, p. 251).

The other, a more muted Modernism, was

of course, ‘the New Architecture’, seen in

residences and offices along the Oval and

the Queen’s Necklace at Marine Drive, or

the Bombay Improvement Trust areas. The

residential buildings of the 30s metamorphosed

the urban cityscape of Bombay to a

characteristic cosmopolitanism, covering vast

areas such as the Matunga, Parel and Dadar

estates, and some of the older precincts of

south Bombay. Building designs here was

restrained and shared many of the qualities of

purist Modernism.

The exterior facades of the residential

structures could be seen as a consumerist or

fashionable, rather than a pervading style,

acceptable at the surface level by the growing

upper middle classes of the day. In the majority

of Bombay’s buildings from the 30s, there is

closeness to Miami’s Deco precincts, but with

much more restraint. Here, Deco(rative) styling is

integrated through the exteriors of the building

as well as boundary walls, entrance gates,

vestibules and lobbies as well as stairwells of

apartments. The design of apartment layouts here

arranged around rigid double loaded corridors,

with servant areas and side entries distinct and

separate (Dalvi, 2000, p. 16).


Mustansir Dalvi

Art Deco was Modern in terms of new

technology (RCC), new materials and new

ways of living but without the ideological

polemics later associated with many Modernist

architects. Its tectonic impulse is similar to

Modernism, even if the poetic impulse is

different. The style was adopted, and then

adapted in a uniquely Indian way, suitable

for Bombay’s climate as well as an Indian

sensibility and lifestyle. Adapting the prevailing

style in the U.S. epitomizing a modern, jet-

setting, cosmopolitan life, Art Deco in Bombay

symbolized an upwardly mobile status and gave

a sense of moving beyond both tradition as well

as dominion, allowing Bombay’s architects to

replace the old with a new International order.

An unstated (although implied) objective

of this paper was to search for, among the

varied and sometimes cacophonous voices of

the architects and other critics of the time, a

semantic, a definition or a name for the kind

of buildings being designed in Bombay in the

decades preceding the Nation State. A well-

known appellation in circulation during the

1930s was the Style Moderne. Interestingly this

phrase has almost never been used by the

architects in Bombay. The phrase, such as it

is, is invoked only by a journalist, Kanhaiyalal

Vakil, in a stringent critique of the buildings of

the day. Most architects refer to the buildings of

their time as Claude Batley does, calling it ‘this

New Architecture’, or ‘modern architecture’

or merely ‘architecture’. This is not due to

ignorance, as has already been shown. Rather,

the need not to name or label is an indication

of contemporaneity, of an attitude of living in

the present, of indulging in the exuberance and

joie-de-vivre of the time as expressed the state

of the art in architectural and constructional

development. Claude Batley would coin another

term- ‘nationalist architecture’ that gained

limited currency as architects sought “a special

architectural sensibility and aesthetics which

would match and give concrete expression to

political freedom”. (Dossal, 2010, p. 184)

Consider the architecture described in a

Presidential Address of the IIA in 1931. The

president, Burjor S. J. Aga, was gratified to

note that the Bombay public was gradually

cultivating a good taste for the much-

neglected ‘Indian style’ of architecture – “…

the new buildings put up on Bhendi Bazar

and Sydenham Road furnish a proof of that

growth, which deserves our appreciation and

encouragement. Simplicity of style has been

taking the place of unnecessarily rich and

expensive detail...” (Aga, 1931).

Figure 5: Building on Mohammed Ali Road, by Abdulhusain Thariani, from ‘The Modern House in India’. Bombay: The Associated Cement Companies Limited (1937).




The buildings Aga refers to as the ‘Indian style’

are actually buildings in the ‘Art Deco’ style

(Figure 5). Aga here, inadvertently, defines

an entirely separate practice of architecture,

parallel to that of the imperial projects, but

carried out by natives, albeit professionally

trained, who referred to themselves as Indian, as

opposed to British/ Imperial (Dalvi, 2004, p. 45).

ConclusionThe changed Bombay of the 30s and 40s exuded

an attitude of optimism, of looking to the future.

Batley looked back at the past with some pride,

as he contemplated the present: “It is a history of

which no city in the world need be ashamed in

having accomplished during less than 100 years

and if mistakes have been made, they were the

mistakes of optimism, progress and initiative

rather than of inaction and cowardice.” (Batley,

1934, p. 11). Architecture in India, insisted Batley,

freely borrowed from the east and the west due

to trade and other influences in the past: “In the

chief cities, at any rate, it is inevitable that her

modern architecture will be influenced by the

world movement that has now made architecture

almost international and that only her climate, of

which by the way she has almost every variety,

will continue to mould these foreign forms into

new shapes to meet the extremes of her tropical

suns and monsoon rains.” (Batley, 1935, p. 118).

In the wake of the crudity of the Industrial

Revolution, Batley regretted that architects

in England fell back upon the revivals out of

sentimentality and this choice was superficial

and transitory. Despite this, Batley has been

described as a ‘neo-traditionalist’ by writers

commenting on his practice and his writing,

such as Lang, Desai, & Desai (1997, p. 141). Batley

believed in an ‘Indian’ architecture that emerged

from the climate and environment of the Local,

not reliant on the superficial symbolism or the

hoary forms of the past, but created of modernist

choice making, adapted to the local conditions. It

naturally follows that Indian architecture should

“join a world movement towards a saner building

phase; in doing so however she should not lose

the sight of the vital facts of life in India, by the

observance of which the old Indian designers

achieved results that were brimful of ‘thinking

and feeling’.” (Batley, 1946, p. 22).

Batley’s ‘This New Architecture’ in Bombay

paralleled ‘Deco’ elsewhere in Europe in its

outward trappings, in its stark geometries,

its ornaments in relief and its espousal of

the new materials of the day, but its attitude

is sublimated in the Local, its intention to

create a habitable city and give comfort to its

residents. Claude Batley’s writings, pedagogy

and initiatives in documentation have yet to

be reconciled with his prolific practice. His

influence has been frequently mentioned but

only sporadically gone into and deserves a

much more detailed research appreciation.

Recent writings as mentioned earlier, have

described the architecture of pre-independence

Bombay as decorative (hence pre-modern),

derivative (Western), formulaic, fusion-

traditionalist (motif-based), alien (ignorant of

local conditions), facile (thanks to the Hollywood/

cinema connection) and part of the colonial

agenda (Dalvi, 2004, p. 44). However, as has

been seen in the paper, contemporary voices

completely belie these assumptions. Architects,

users and commentators at large were aware of

the past, and yet they, in the wisdom available to


Mustansir Dalvi

them two decades before the Nation State, with

the knowledge of what was imminent, chose to

align themselves with an International future.

Ultimately, the buildings speak for themselves.

They have weathered well into the second

decade of the new millennium, seventy or

eighty years after they were contemplated, built

and commented upon. They knit together the

emerging urban fabric of a commerce driven

metropolis and stand symbolic of its global

aspirations and cosmopolitan culture. At the

same time, they address the context of the region

critically, not so much from a cultural but an

environmental standpoint. For the city of Bombay

and by extension- the prospective free India,

these buildings signify Modernism and stand as

the vanguard of a peoples’ larger future.

Acknowledgements:A version of this paper was previously presented at the

Seminar: ‘Architecture as Social History: Reflections on

Bombay/Mumbai’, organised by the K. R. Cama Oriental

Institute, Mumbai on 23-24 January 2010, under the

title,‘‘This New Architecture’: contemporary voices in

Bombay’s architectural development in the 1930s’.

Notes:1 This paper deals with a period of 1930s and 1940s

and retains the contemporary name of the city –

Bombay. The city was renamed as Mumbai in 1995.

References:

Aga, B. S. (1931). Presidential Address. Annual

Address at the Indian Institute of Architects. Bombay.

Alff, J. (1997). Temples of Light: Bombay’s Art

Deco Cinemas and the Birth of Modern Myth. In P.

Rohatgi, P. Godrej, & R. Mehrotra (Eds.), Bombay to

Mumbai: Changing Perspectives (pp. 250-257). Mumbai:

Marg Publications.

Batley, C. (1934, April). “Bombay Looks Ahead”.

Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects, I(1), 11-12.

Batley, C. (1935, April). Modern Architecture in

India. Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects, I(4),

118-119.

Batley, C. (1935, October). Presidential Address for

the Session 1935-36. Journal of the Indian Institute of

Architects, II(2), 47-49.

Batley, C. (1935, January). This New Architecture.

Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects, I(3), 103-104.

Batley, C. (Ed.). (1937, July). Obituary for Robert

William Cable F.R.I.B.A. Journal of the Indian Institue

of Architects, IV(1), 1937.

Batley, C. (1946). Architecture (Vol. Oxford

Pamphlets on Indian Affairs No. 35). Madras:

Oxford University Press.

Chatterjee, M. (1985). The Evolution of Contemporary

Indian Architecture. In Architecture in India. Paris:

Ministere des relations exterieures Association

Fancaise d’Action Artistique; Electra Moniteur.

Dalvi, M. (2000). ‘Domestic Deco’ Architecture in

Bombay: G. B.’s Milieu. In K. Iyer (Ed.), Buildings that

shaped Bombay: Works of G. B. Mhatre, FRIBA (1902-

1973) (pp. 14-21). Mumbai: KRVIA/UDRI.

Dalvi, M. (2004). The ‘Lesser’ Architecture of

Bombay. (A. Sardesai, Ed.) Art India, 9(1), 44-47.

Deshpande, R. S. (1935). Cheap & Healthy homes

for the Middle Classes of India. Poona: United Book

Corporation.




Deshpande, R. S. (1939). Modern Ideal Homes for India

(4th ed.). Poona: United Book Corporation.

Ditchburn, D. W. (Ed.). (1936, October). Buildings

on the Cooperage. Journal of the Indian Institute of

Architects, III(2), 176.

Dossal, M. (2010). Theatre of Conflict, City of Hope:

Mumbai, 1600 to Present Times. New Delhi: Oxford

University Press.

Evanson, N. (2000). An Architectural Hybrid. In

S. Patel, & A. Thorner (Eds.), Bombay: Mosaic of

Modern Culture (pp. 165-181). New Delhi: Oxford

University Press.

Iyer, K. (2008). Art Deco in Hindu and Parsi Colonies

and Wadala. In S. Dwivedi, & R. Mehrotra, Bombay

Deco (pp. 288-299). Mumbai: Eminence Designs.

Kapadia, P. P. (1937, July). Presidential Address. (C.

Batley, Ed.) Journal of the Indian Institute of Architects,

IV(1), 257-260.

Lang, J., Desai, M., & Desai, M. (1997). Architecture

and Independence, the Search for Identity: India, 1880-

1980. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

McNight F. & Kapadia P. P. (1934, July). Review of

Construction and Materials. Journal of the Indian

Institute of Architects, I(2), 79-80.

Mehta, H. (1936, April). Domestic Architecture in

India. (P. P. Kapadia, Ed.) Journal of the Indian Institutes

of Architects, II(4), 115-116.

Mistri M. J. P, & Billimoria H. J. (1942, January).

Architectural Development in Bombay during the

last Twenty-Five Years. Journal of the Indian Institute of

Architects, 216-223.

Moncrieff, A. (1929). Handbook and Directory of

the Concrete Industry in India. Bombay: Concrete

Association of india.

Pal, P. (1997). Introduction. In P. Rohatgi, P. Godrej,

& R. Mehrotra (Eds.), Bombay to Mumbai: Changing

Perspectives (pp. 13-15). Mumbai: Marg Publications.

Shroff, L. (1934, July). Presidential Address. Jounal of

the Indian Institute of Architects, I(2), 47.

The Associated Cement Companies Limited. (1937).

The Modern House in India. Bombay: The Associated

Cement Companies Limited.

The Cement Marketing Company of India Limited

(Publicity Department). (1942). The Modern House in

India. Bombay: The Cement Marketing Company of

India Limited.

Vakil, K. H. (1936, February). Architecture as a

Social Necessity. (P. P. Kapadia, Ed.) Journal of the

Indian Institute of Architects, II(3), 79.

This New Architecture’: Contemporary Voices on Bombay’s ... · Indian Modernism Before Independence. ... metropolis. As a collective, these buildings, interwoven within the older

Documents